By Kennedy Maize
“The AI policy is the latest manifestation of the White House’s approach to many economic issues: centralized government actions in an attempt to sidestep normal economic policies. It starts with high tariffs…. Then there is direct interference in the economy.”
President Donald Trump has launched a national industrial policy backing artificial intelligence in a self-proclaimed race against China for world AI dominance. It’s called the “Genesis Mission” (not to be confused with the 1997 Sci Fi Channel TV series Mission Genesis).
On Thanksgiving week (Nov. 24), Trump promulgated Executive Order 14303, “Launching the Genesis Mission.” It proclaims, “Today, America is in a race for global technology dominance in the development of artificial intelligence (AI), an important frontier of scientific discovery and economic growth.”
The executive order added:
In this pivotal moment, the challenges we face require a historic national effort, comparable in urgency and ambition to the Manhattan Project that was instrumental to our victory in World War II and was a critical basis for the foundation of the Department of Energy (DOE) and its national laboratories.”
DOE will be at the controls of the new mission. In an accompanying posting, DOE said that the “Genesis Mission will develop an integrated platform that connects the world’s best supercomputers, experimental facilities, AI systems, and unique datasets across every major scientific domain to double the productivity and impact of American research and innovation within a decade.” Whew!
For political reasons, the administration is likely to push back on calling its Genesis Mission “industrial policy,” although it fits the basic definitions quite closely. A conventional definition comes from the OECD:
Industrial policy refers to government assistance to businesses to boost or reshape specific economic activities, especially to firms or types of firms based on their activity, technology, location, size or age. Governments use industrial policies to address important economic, social and environmental challenges that markets cannot address on their own, such as to accelerate the green transition, or improve the robustness of value chains for critical products and services.
Today, industrial policy has a bad name among economic conservatives, in part because of past failures (does anyone remember the 1980’s U.S. Synthetic Fuels Corporation, born in the Carter administration and died in the Reagan administration?).
U.S. government actions to impel or impede private sector actions it wants to control go back to the days of the founding fathers, including the clashing economic visions of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson and the early 19th century’s unbridled enthusiasm for canals across the Alleghenies.
The Trump mission positively glows with enthusiasm. It proclaims:
The Genesis Mission will dramatically accelerate scientific discovery, strengthen national security, secure energy dominance, enhance workforce productivity, and multiply the return on taxpayer investment into research and development, thereby furthering America’s technological dominance and global strategic leadership.
Might it also resolve the perpetual motion conundrum and cure chronic insomnia?
Writing this summer in the libertarian Cato Institute’s Regulation magazine, Canadian economist Pierre Lemieu said:
Rent-seeking guides industrial policy. For obvious reasons of incentives, free competition and financial markets are generally better at resource allocation than politicians and bureaucrats. Public choice analysis shows that government failures are generally worse than market failures.
Continuing:
Public choice economics has shown that it is an error to imagine ideal public policies and expect that politicians and bureaucrats will realize them. Government officials and agents have their own personal interests. Even if they did not, they cannot know all the required information about supply and demand, which can only be conveyed by the free-market prices that their interventions would disrupt… Industrial policy is necessarily industrial politics.
The AI policy is the latest manifestation of the White House’s approach to many economic issues: centralized government actions in an attempt to sidestep normal economic policies. It starts with high tariffs, right out of Hamilton’s mercantilist playbook. By most accounts, Trump’s first round of confiscatory tariffs have been a disaster and helped push up consumer prices. He has often backed down. Most recently he endorsed paying off soybean farmers to the tune of $12 billion because of the damage his tariffs did when China stopped buying U.S. beans, their best market.
Then there is direct interference in the economy. The White House demanded control of many important business decisions in return for approving the merger of U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel. DOE routinely overrides local businesses, state regulators, and regional electric system operators, who know the facts on the ground, in order to prevent closure of an uneconomic coal-fired plant. The U.S. acquired a controlling equity stake in the nation’s only significant rare earth minerals mine. The U.S. says it will use tribute from Japan to build, own, and operate civilian nuclear power plants.
That last overreach prompted a rare outburst of truth from a key DOE official, chief of staff Carl Coe, who told a Tennessee business group:
The role of having the government involved in private markets is sacrosanct — you just don’t do it. But this is a national emergency.”
The emergency is entirely concocted.
Conventional conservative columnist George Will in October excoriated what he labeled “national conservatives” who support Trumpism and his administration’s emulation of Democratic Party economic policy. “The national conservatives, he wrote, “also believe government should comprehensively intervene in the economy, politically allocating capital (and therefore opportunity) to improve on the rationality of free markets.” This ends with a lesson, according to Will: “What we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.”
And now, to advance its megalomaniacal AI obsession, Trump is moving to ban states from any regulations that might control development of AI data centers, which are pushing up electric rates across the country. Reacting to a move by Florida’s Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, Trump posted on his social media platform Monday (Dec. 8):
There must be only One Rulebook if we are going to continue to lead in AI. We are beating ALL COUNTRIES at this point in the race, but that won’t last long if we are going to have 50 States, many of them bad actors, involved in RULES and the APPROVAL PROCESS. THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT THIS! AI WILL BE DESTROYED IN ITS INFANCY! I will be doing a ONE RULE Executive Order this week. You can’t expect a company to get 50 Approvals every time they want to do something. THAT WILL NEVER WORK!
And neither will national industrial planning work from the federal government.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The worst thing about government expansion is that more and more people’s first thoughts on any problem are “Why doesn’t government fix this?” instead of (1) trusting free markets and people with skin in the game, and (2) taking any personal responsibility for themselves.
People forget….
“We are from the government and we are here to help.”
That is the moment you run.
” we are going to have 50 States, many of them bad actors, involved in RULES and the APPROVAL PROCESS” . . . ‘THAT WILL NEVER WORK!”
I hear an upside-down echo. A couple of years ago, dealing with a national rule, wasn’t the argument made to turn the issue over to the states and let each work it out in their own way?
Politicians must be immune to cognitive dissonance.
AI hype is probably, mostly scam, but Department of Energy has been one of the biggest buyers/innovators of supercomputing processing for over 30 years, and led the field for most of it. DOE is also transforming into power generation evangelists. Departments of War and Energy are combining in efforts to deploy (nuclear) power generation and AI computing :datacenters,: Even if AI comes to be commercial grift (h/o Willis), the government ownership of any delivered hardware might be one of the best deals we’ve gotten in a while.
AI may still turn out to be all horse manure, but horse manure, large scale computing, and nuclear power generation aren’t outside of historical scope for either agency.
Spot on commentary!
The “commentary” was pure leftwing propaganda.
Perhaps, but it does raise a few points worthy of debate.
Indeed the article is slanted to one side. People have different opinions.
The free market side? If this is really a national security/defense issue, the DOE does not need to be involved,
AI does have a national security dimension, like the development of the atom bomb.
Imagine if there had been no Manhattan project, and the Soviet Union or Empire of Japan got there first?
Someone else taking a substantial lead in AI could be just as damaging.
I know a lot of conservatives don’t like AI, but AI is real and has the potential to be a geopolitical game changer. AI is already accelerating research into defence applicable technology.
China has launched their own Ai Manhattan project, massive government support is available to Chinese AI companies.
It’s not just defence where this could give China a winning edge.
There is already a problem with American kids losing touch with civic values. With the aid of convincingly realistic online AI friends, hostile nations like China could sow even more confusion about society and social values, further undermining belief in the republic and the constitution. Sow enough confusion and the whole edifice could collapse.
Do you really want the best friend of lonely American teenagers to be an advanced AI controlled by a hostile foreign power?
Only a better AI can defeat the threat posed by a hostile AI, whether that be the threat of superior military technology, or more convert and insidious threats like a campaign to corrupt the patriotism of young people.
This is not a race the USA can afford to lose.
This is not some extremely focused field like the atom bomb. It’s a wide open field with no clear methods or goals. The best thing the government can do to accelerate AI progress is get out of the way and stop trying to pretend government bureaucrats and politicians have the slightest idea where AI is going. Let China make that mistake.
Then focus on specific goals.
I’m no fan of big government but sometimes the risk of asymmetric progress is too great to tolerate. I believe AI is one of those cases.
There are NO specific goals to focus on. This is like saying Bohr et al should have been focusing on specific goals at the beginning of quantum mechanics.
Government is only good at locking in the status quo. There’s not a creative thought in anything government does, unless it’s how to quibble around laws. Any government industrial policy on AI in general now will just slow down progress. The only way government can help is stop meddling and stop trying to plan; just get out of the way. Free markets began this AI boom, not government. Central planning is the worst thing government can do to help anybody.
It’s hard to know which side is right in this argument. On the face of it, the federal government is interfering in an industry instead of letting it rip, so it’s a bad move. OTOH, if it is a move to stop the states interfering, ie, if it is facilitating rather than interfering, then it could be a good move.
I watched TV of President Trump signing this order.
My impression was that his goal was to free up the bureaucratic system, not to actually have Feds building and operating machinery.
What is not to like? Geoff S
You are exactly right, Geoff.
Trump is trying to remove impediments to AI companies. He has sped up the review process to weeks instead of months and years for things like new conventional power plants. He is also promoting nuclear generation.
And, btw, nobody listens to George Will, other than possibly the author of this article.
I hear remnants of the 1950s and 60s in yr post. Dr Strangelove characters. First strike proponents. Captain America Rules.
Overblown analogies and paranoid inferences.
We have been here before..
Silly. Like the author of this article.
From your perspective, yes. To you it’s all “left wing propaganda”. So you don’t have to argue your point anymore.
I understand it makes life so much easier. I like my facts to be accurate so i dont care about left or right. Nutters on both sides. Big carpets with big mounts can no longer be ignored..
All true, but there are aspects of this that need debate.
The article is not intended to facilitate debate. It is intended, from my point of view, to trash Trump, with no value added to any reasonable conversation.
“There is already a problem with American kids losing touch with civic values.”
Because they don’t teach civics in school anymore.
What’s worse is that kids have no role models who practice civic virtue.
Right! I used to get down on my parents for being low income- but, they never broke a law or stole a penny. In hindsight, I respect them very much- hope they read this in heaven. 🙂
Sadly the role models teach indoctrination.
“AI does have a national security dimension, like the development of the atom bomb.”
Really? The private sector with deregulation (from antitrust law) can surely lead with this, separating the wheat from the shaft.
Japan, like Germany, had atomic bomb projects.
While unconfirmed, some reports suggest Japan detonated an atomic bomb in a secret facility in what is now North Korea very shortly before Hiroshima.
It that is true, the USA barely won the race.
The question should be, is this really a race?
There are points to debate on both sides.
The future is unpredictable, but so far, chasing “dominance” in AI would seem to be a fool’s errand.
Here’s the result of my last 15 minutes of fun with ChatGPT –
Ah, sorry, but I promise I won’t make any mistakes in the future. You have my word.
I haven’t tried the Chinese open-source AIs recently, but they shouldn’t be much worse than ChatGPT. I suppose I can waste another 15 mins. to see if the Chinese product can be worse than the US one.
Done, Just as error prone.
AI is in its infancy. Of course it is far from perfect. When you ask a question, AI scans the web for answers. If, instead, you scanned the web for yourself, you would take many times longer, and the first websites you came across would be the ones that top the search lists, ie, the mainstream ones. In a non-controversial area that would probably be all you need. But in a controversial area, you would likely want to dig further, and you would start to find different information. That is where AI is at right now. But AI does a lot more than search the web to answer questions, and it is already an immensely valuable tool. Its use and its contribution to society and the economy will surely grow – a lot. DT is right to want America to maximise its return from AI. Is he setting about it the right way? Time will tell.
Mike, I agree that AI has uses. Providing accurate information is not a strong point. I wonder about the cost-effectiveness of the US version of the exercise, and terms such as “domination” and “winning” seem a bit out of place to me.
I’m not sure what “return from AI” means, and I suspect nobody else does either. As you say, time will tell. The future is unknowable, in spite of the “consensus” who believe you can predict future temperatures by meticulously dissecting the past.
When I can trust either the Chinese or US versions of AI to provide factual answers, in the same why I trust my brakes and steering to perform, then I might even be prepared to pay for it. Until then, it’s just like Elon Musk’s “self driving cars”, or Mark Zuckerberg’s “Metaverse”.
“Genesis Mission will develop an integrated platform that connects the world’s best supercomputers, experimental facilities, AI systems, and unique datasets across every major scientific domain to double the productivity and impact of American research and innovation within a decade.”
Isn’t that called Skynet?
Insisting that there be one set of clear rules across all states in order to speed up the ability of private companies to build out AI infrastructure seems rather sensible. It will be fraught with problems because all real estate is, at end of day, local. But the truth is that the western world has hobbled its own economy by making it hard to build anything, anywhere.
But this hardly rises to the level of industrial policy. After complaining that things should be left to the private sector, the author is complaining about policy that enables the private sector.
You summed it up nicely, David. Hopefully, the hysterics will calm down after reading your post.
As usual, those in charge know nothing. They are in charge of making a lot of money for someone, not the taxpayer. “Artificial Intelligence” is a nonsense, a contradiction in terms. ‘Garbage in-garbage out’ is still true. Any use of AI makes this clear. AI does not create knowledge; open new doors. It MAY help to get a summary of what is already known and in the data base, but you never know what it missed or what it was told to NOT report or told to distort. AI is a computer doing what it is programmed to do. AI knows nothing of what is not in the data base.
The human brain is alive and capable, the computer is not.
That is no longer true. A few weeks ago a Google AI made a theoretical physics breakthrough in a question which has stumped human researchers for over a century.
https://www.businessinsider.com/google-deepmind-cracks-century-old-physics-mystery-ai-fluid-dynamics-2025-11
That capability alone makes AI worth it.
AI can and does offer solutions to problems. The danger is that those in power will give it policy power and then hide behind it when questions of responsibility arise.
It is the age old ‘trust or distrust the machine’ issue. It should remain a tool and not be a creator. This line can be all too easily blurred.
And would you trust the likes of Musk and the rest of the tech mafia ( Palentir etc) with their madcap ideas of transhumanism? ( don’t answer that).
:The danger is that those in power will give it policy power and then hide behind it when questions of responsibility arise.”
This is pure speculation.
They might do this. They might do that. Much ado about nothing, imo.
Lala land. We are supposed to think: don’t worry…and don’t look too closely. But alas, facts matter like statements and policy documents.
I am not speculating. This has been the trajectory of every bureaucratic system since the invention of the internet.
People being replaced by machines. Duck responsibility by the line: it is the system’s fault, nothing to do w me.
The danger is there, always. Denying it exists is being wilfully blind and ignorant.
The thing is: people complain when the system works against their interest but fully comply when it suits their aims.
When the shoe is on the other foot the kicking starts.
AI recently discovered a new type of Supernova by going over data previously acquired.
Thanks for the heads-up. I downloaded and read the paper. It is, effectively, a search based on a well-designed algorithm. The Navier-Stokes equation has always been difficult, and is linearized to permit solutions. Now, a fast computer with a well-designed algorithm does a numerical search a human cannot do in a lifetime.
THAT is what I wrote above.
The problem was not constructed ab initio by the computer and solved by the computer. It is not new science in that sense at all. Humans designed the algorithm and solved the problem using the computer capabilities. It is a numerical solution to a mid-19th century analysis of fluid flow. Of course, it is splashy to assert AI solved the Navier-Stokes problem, but that is misleading. It is the other way around. Humans set it up and applied a fast computer to seek the defined singularities. That is a good use of fast digital computers.
The human brain, even millions of smart ones working together, isn’t as capable at ingesting massive datasets and information, identifying patterns, and summarizing findings as the huge AI server farms. And human brains also know nothing of what isn’t in their “database.” Not knowing what we don’t know is the same problem for AI and for the human brain. But AI can ingest and process much more data than human brains can.
If you think the problems of this world can be solved by data collection you haven’t been paying attention.
The ones who say:’ if only we had bigger computers’ will eventually build the cage..
If you think the problems of this world can be solved by data collection…
Non sequitur alert. Did I say that? I don’t see it.
It isn’t the role of governments to directly interfere in economic markets, but it’s the role of a government to make sure to enable competitive research with suitable regulations, and infrastructure in order to create conditions where private industry can thrive. For AI, energy and lots of it is paramount. Since energy is also a public utility, it’s the role of government to make sure supply meets demand in oder to keep energy prices affordable for all, through energy infrastructure improvements, and the situation I would say is quite urgent, since already now electricity prices are soaring. I’m not convinced the private sector can do all this alone, at least in a timely manner.
Another good, to-the-point post. Thanks, Eric.
Who pays the piper calls the tunes. Tech mafia strikes again. Deep state Military Industrial Complex tied to Israel w centralised intelligence gathering and implementation through AI.
You WILL be on a list, stamped and labeled. Checked and steered into the desired direction or simply refused access to normal physical and internet spaces. A brave new world and a new global horizon.
There goes yr freedom loving, people pleasing President.
Great, huh?!
Populist delusion at work. Use people power to weaponise yr benefit and the clique who funds it.
Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.
It’s history. I suggest you study ‘elite theory’. You might learn something..
Will be?
We already are.
What do you thinks your data in the cloud is secure?
What a load of steaming horse manure. We’re taking counsel from Libertarians and Never-Trumpers like George Will? This is the same kind of mindless reaction to Trump policies that we heard when Trump announced tariffs on other countries. Over the last year the armchair pundit army screeched about free trade, standing on puritanical policy ideals that never existed in the real world. Free trade is great when it’s actually implemented by both trading partners, but it wasn’t. The U.S. was on the losing end of trade policies with many countries. They took advantage of gullible globalist presidents who thought that by “setting the example” while other countries took advantage of us, we were leading the world. We weren’t and Americans suffered for it. Trump has been using tariffs to renegotiate trade deals that are much more favorable to us and to bring trillions in foreign investment to the U.S. and jobs and prosperity. Unlike the armchair pundits like George Will and the writers for MasterResource, Trump is a pragmatic and skilled negotiator who can see when things need to change or get done and marshals all the resources and leverage at his disposal to do it.
The emergency is entirely concocted.
Nope. The race for AI supremacy is real and it’s a huge deal. It is a transformative technology as significant as the transition to a fossil fuel economy was over a century ago. It was American resolve and mobilization of industrial capacity that won WWII, not pithy ideals and free market platitudes. The Chinese Communist Party has weaponized their economy in their goal to become the dominant influence on world affairs and we have been blithely standing by, lulled by our own sanctimony about American ideals and resting on the laurels of the tremendous effort and sacrifices of the generation that built American economic power, brought extraordinary prosperity, ended WWII, and created the powerful global economic, military, and political influence of the U.S.A.
Nothing in the Executive Order “centralizes” economic power in the federal government. What a gross misreading of the text and meaning just to score points against the most energetic and productive and pro-American president we’ve had in more than a century. Or ever. The order mobilizes the many misbegotten and frequently feckless or even parasitic federal agencies to clear the way for the private sector to do what it does best: innovate. And it redirects energy policy from shackling energy production to enabling it.
“Mindless reaction”
That’s it! This whole article is a mindless reaction to Trump. And then we have posters agreeing with the delusional author.
All the leftwing does is lie. That’s all they can do. The truth makes them look very bad.
This article is just another leftwing lie.
From the article: “And neither will national industrial planning work from the federal government.”
I would bet a paycheck this author never questioned Joe Biden’s national industrial planning.
He should have questioned it. Biden’s policies are what got us in the economic mess Trump is trying to rectify now.
If Biden were in charge now, there would be no big American AI push because you can’t power AI on windmills and solar, and that’s all Biden would allow with his industrial policy..
I finally got a chance to read Trump’s EO. AI is going to happen. Trump’s EO is only an outline of an AI policy (TBD).
These articles imply a work-in-progress:
My stance is I’d rather see Trump calling the shots rather than the CCP. Pray that God gives Trump the wisdom to do it right.
“Pray that God gives Trump the wisdom to do it right”.
That will be some huge prayer.
Putting Trump and wisdom in one line is like trying to put two opposites of a magnet together.
TDS.
Can’t escape your bias, can you.
Imagine the other side saying there can be only one rulebook. It’s easy if you try – John Lennon
The “other side” is strictly that.
One rulebook. Pray tell are you referring to Net-Zero and the Climate Crisis?
This is all sensible until near the end. The Trump order banning states from creating their own AI regulations is a good, free market move. Forcing AI developers to bend the knee to 50 different regulatory regimes is sheer idiocy.
Exactly!
Also consider, for the most part:
A. State Public Utility regulators cater to the regulated.”
B. Electric utilities are in league with the “clean energy” cult.
It’s all about building and protecting “rate base.”
First point.
AI is all about software.
Yes, server farms are needed and high end processors are needed, but without data and software there is nothing but foot warmers.
Second point.
Kennedy’s Moon Shot would not have happened if left to the commercial supply and demand market. Yes, we got transistors and space blankets and tang, but the payoff in an economic sense did not come close to the investment. The reason why commercial space programs have economic sense today is because of the fundamental technologies, etc., established by NASA, aka the US Government.
Third point.
There is no control rod.
This is neither the Sword of Damocles nor the Riches beyond the dreams of Avarice.
Fourth point.
There are valid concerns on both sides of the debate.
These need fair and mature/adult debate.
Fifth point.
If, repeat if, established in a sane, economical manner today, what can it become in the future and what kinds of guardrails need to be in place?
Last point.
The article is extremely biased and includes a lot of sophistry.
“Might it also resolve the perpetual motion conundrum and cure chronic insomnia?”
That line was entirely unnecessary.
“The emergency is entirely concocted..”
Again, bias. Intended to squelch debate.
Might it not have been better asking if this warrants attention as a national emergency?
“And now, to advance its megalomaniacal AI obsession,”
More sophistry.
“which are pushing up electric rates across the country.”
Given the paucity of existing data centers, this is a false claim.
The potential is concerning, of course.
“Trump is moving to ban states from any regulations that might control development of AI data centers”
AI and data centers are interstate commerce, in general. There might be private centers, of course, and those would not be subject to interstate commerce regulations.
In point of fact, disallowing States to regulate AI and data centers that cross state borders is Constitutional. Reference the commerce clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 as amended by the 10th Amendment.
As such, I award the contents of this article and all of its contributors the Sophistry Class 1 award.
The above article is very good, but IMHO needs the following clarification to one of its statements:
“The AI policy is the latest manifestation of the White House’s approach to many economic issues:
centralized government actions in an attempt to sidestep normal economic policiesspend money the US doesn’t currently have (being some $38.5 TRILLION in debt) without any regard for the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 that states Congress, not the Executive Branch, is granted the power to allocate money for the general welfare and common defense of the United States.”Simply put, its easy to spend money to glorify oneself and/or pay off sycophants if one simply doesn’t care about the US Constitution, rule of law, and accounting for that spending.
Post the quote that says Trump is spending money
Happy to oblige with just of few of such:
“President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” has officially been signed into law . . . The Department of Defense will receive $150 billion in additional funding, primarily allocated to weapons acquisition, shipbuilding, and the development of the “Golden Dome” defense system.”
— https://www.militaryfamily.org/big-beautiful-bill-is-now-law-heres-what-it-means-for-military-families/
“During a speech from the White House Wednesday, President Donald Trump said he is sending a $1,776 bonus check to U.S. troops for Christmas, indicating that tariffs were funding the payments he called ‘warrior dividends’.”
— http://www.koat.com/…/warrior-dividend-checks…/69803526
“Recent reports indicate that Trump is spending nearly $800,000 most weekends to travel to his private club in Florida, despite owning a residence in New York and a golf course in New Jersey . . .”
— Rep. Troy Carter, Sr. (D-LA), reference: https://thehill.com/opinion/5239509-public-funds-waste-musk-trump
“Over the weekend, President Donald Trump promised Americans $2,000 each from the ‘trillions of dollars’ in tariff revenue he said his administration has collected.”
— https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-trumps-promise-to-give-americans-2000-payments-from-tariff-dividends
Above and beyond these, on need only look at the costs (“the spending of money”) associated with each and every one of the 221 Executive Orders Donald J. Trump has issued as President during 2025 to date (see https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders/donald-trump/2025 ).
Like shooting fish in a barrel.
Nope, I put little stock in this guy. Looks like he doesn’t like Trump, that’s okay lots of people don’t like him. I don’t know if he likes AI but he sure doesn’t want government involved. From what I saw Trump was asking for a gathering of AI experts (the people building AI) to discuss road bumps or other issues. I don’t have a problem with that. One problem I can imagine is onerous regulations federal, state and local, you know like what nuclear has dealt with in the past and fossil fuels currently. I have no problem eliminating onerous regulations. He trashes conservative for supporting Trump even holds up George Will to prove his point. I have read a lot of what George has had to say, I agree with a lot but disagree with a fair amount. He holds the free market up for our consideration. That’s okay I am also a free market kind of guy, I have also read or heard a fair amount from free market guys. Don’t put much stock in a lot of what they say. They claim a free market will solve all our problems and it probably would if we lived in an ideal world but we don’t, everybody knows we don’t. A free market doesn’t mean others are free to screw me over, we don’t always find ourselves in a kind and generous world. That is precisely why we need bumpers on our free market, I would prefer we didn’t need them but in todays world we can’t live without them. No I am not impressed with this guy.